Former Creative Commons CEO on the battles faced by CC licensing

Some of the organizations that have been skeptical of Creative Commons …

This article forms part of Wired.co.uk's Creative Commons Week, which sees a range of articles published on the topics of CC licensing, as well as the past, present and future of the Creative Commons movement.

Creative Commons is like a social network, claims Joi Ito, the organisation's former CEO and current chairman of the board, "once enough people start to use it, it will start to spread" and spread exponentially.

The adoption curve for the licensing model shows use has doubled every 18 months or so, and this, says Ito, has been steady for the last five years. Creative Commons is now at "critical mass," he claims, but argues that the average person still doesn't know what it is. Success will be marked by Creative Commons content appearing at the top of search results provided by the likes of Google and Yahoo, because that will happen when people know exactly what it is—and want to find it. "We're not there yet but we should be soon," he says.

We caught Ito in between flights. He is now Director of MIT's Media Lab, and sits on the boards of the Mozilla Foundation, WITNESS, and Global Voices. This is alongside being an early investor in Last.fm, Kickstarter, Twitter and Flickr—the latter, which is now a huge repository for Creative Commons imagery. It is with his MIT hat on that he chooses what he believes will be a big growth area for Creative Commons—academic publications. He also has a personal interest in open hardware. "I think what's happening in this area is really similar to what opened with open source. It could really lower the innovation cost of hardware and allow startups to create hardware when, right now, it tends to be dominated by the big companies," he says.

However, even in areas where there has been huge Creative Commons uptake, there are still detractors, he admits. Among photographers, specifically amateur photographers, there is now massive support for the CC licensing model. It is now starting to filter upwards with image library Getty Images starting to look at Creative Commons licenses for non-commercial images. Says Ito: "This seems to be a license that allows photographers to benefit commercially while still using the internet to promote their work. I think the savvier amongst photographers are figuring out that that makes sense."

Some professionals remain skeptical. Ito acknowledges: "More and more photographers are starting to understand the value but there will always be those who believe that for every free photograph that somebody shares, there's one that they're not selling. Photographers who are very pro-Creative Commons tend to be those who are publishing books and tools."

He argues that the model has simply become a scapegoat with photographers blaming it for falling magazine commissions. "There is also a lot of irrational mythology what the real cause of the present copyright difficulties are. I know that the media business, for example, is tough these days and that budgets are getting cut, and it's not just because of Creative Commons licensing. A lot of this is just being caused by the economics of the Internet," he states. And he is confident that education will bring more to Creative Commons across genres.

Some of the organizations that traditionally seemed pitted against Creative Commons are now happy to sit at the table. The Motion Picture Association and Recording Industry Association of America "have become much more moderate," says Ito. "In the recent hearings at the National Academy in the US, both organizations were supportive of the idea that artists should have choice, which is a departure from their original, much more extreme mantra."

But he states that the debate over intellectual copyright can still feel "like the Arab Israeli conflict at some level." He points to two US bills—SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and the Protect IP Act—as forms of "copyright extremism" and claim that their backers are the people coming up with the "somewhat irrational" arguments against Creative Commons.

Although perhaps slightly war-scarred and wary, Ito remains confident and optimistic. "The rational people seem to be at the same table as us and we then work on the extremists on both sides. We're moving forward but every once in a while, there are a few steps back," he concludes.

13 Reader Comments

Much better article than I've come to expect from Wired. Great job, Katie Scott.

It would be nice if it had a little more substance, though. It's nice that someone in the related field is opposing SOPA and PIPA (or, at least, that's what it sounds like), but it sounds to me that the MPAA and RIAA are being downplayed when it's said they've become "much more moderate" yet at least one RIAA member has been playing a game of cat and mouse with DMCA to this day.

Much better article than I've come to expect from Wired. Great job, Katie Scott.

It would be nice if it had a little more substance, though. It's nice that someone in the related field is opposing SOPA and PIPA (or, at least, that's what it sounds like), but it sounds to me that the MPAA and RIAA are being downplayed when it's said they've become "much more moderate" yet at least one RIAA member has been playing a game of cat and mouse with DMCA to this day.

The line to walk with the RIAA is much tighter and finer for policy makers and influencers than for consumers.

Think about it; the goal with the RIAA is not to be at war indefinitely with consumers, but instead to bring about consumer-friendly change in policy and attitude. We want the RIAA et al on our side.

To the extent that we can reward their desirable behavior with positive language and a diplomatic tone, we absolutely should.

And to the extent something like Creative Commons and people like Ito can bring rights holders to a more advance way of thinking, we should be grateful.

No doubt, there is much more to be done. But if CC can offer a legitimate solution rights holders find to be worth considering, then absolutely they've become much more moderate. It's not enough, but it's an encouraging step forward.

Much better article than I've come to expect from Wired. Great job, Katie Scott.

It would be nice if it had a little more substance, though. It's nice that someone in the related field is opposing SOPA and PIPA (or, at least, that's what it sounds like), but it sounds to me that the MPAA and RIAA are being downplayed when it's said they've become "much more moderate" yet at least one RIAA member has been playing a game of cat and mouse with DMCA to this day.

I think we've learned from the UMG fiasco, it doesn't matter what license you publish your work under, what matters is the licensing terms the place you publish it at uses. You can walk into someone's house all you want yelling "free speech! free beer!", but that doesn't mean the owner of the house isn't allowed to call the cops on you for disturbing their peace.

I know places like SourceForge, and even NewGrounds.com, provide pre-canned licensing terms folks can pick-n-choose from. But, still, when you rely on a third-party to disseminate your goods, they still have the right to shut the door in your face if they choose.

And this makes it dicey with online publications, because you can keep drilling down until you hit a third party. Ok, you're publishing your software under a creative commons license, and you're doing it on your own domain. But, the software (for argument's sake) pisses some group off for whatever reason. Since it's not on SourceForge, that group can't just go to SF and tell them to take your stuff down. So, they go further upstream...they go to your ISP or try to comandeer your domain name via the government's new rules on domain name seizures, etc, etc. Ultimately, to get your content "out there", you have to rely on someone else to help you, regardless of how self-sufficient you try to be. And, as such, even with all kinds of open licenses that try to let you push your content out, you're still operating under someone elses jurisdiction and they can make a judgement call over whether they will allow you to keep operating or not.

Wikileaks springs to mind. (Maybe that's a bad example for a "creative commons" argument, but it demonstrates that the third-parties they were using to hose their site decided to shut them off even though they were paying.)

Yes, people should be educated more about Creative Commons, and they could start with Wired, who I think regularly abuse it. Also, an increasing number of professional photographers are starting to recognize that CC isn't such a great idea, thanks to the widespread misuse, and its potential pitfalls, for example see below article:http://thispicturesucks.wordpress.com/2 ... ool-sperm/

I'm already using CC licenses for some of my products. I've been experimenting with them for some time now. They strike an excellent balance between my commercial needs and my altruistic desire to help others create derivative works that have wider benefits for the community. I also use CC licensed media extensively as components in my products.

Extreme copyright is bad for my business because it reduces market exposure and obliges me to go around suing everyone or (if not) risk losing my right to do so if a really outrageous case of infringement arises.

Extreme "copyleft" à la GNU makes me feel like I'm cheating my family by spending time on "altruistic" projects and signing away the right to ever make any money from my hard work. They deserve to have some return from the hard work I'm doing. I don't like the idea that if I incorporate one GNU licensed component in my work, it's like, in legal terms, as though my work has caught the plague or something - my work is then GNU licensed, as is anything my work touches. It's hard to know under what circumstances this license contagion spreads... The GNU licenses are just too long and technical for me to find out all the details as they apply to my products; and in any case, despite my best efforts, there remain areas of ambiguity when I'm not sure whether a license provision applies and when not.

CC licenses are much more balanced: they allow the person doing the hard work to decide which license provisions should apply to their product. The license terms are intelligible in plain language, legal language and machine-readable tags. Perfect for lawyers, search engines and normal people alike!

As for this idea that CC licenses are taking business away from commercial media - as far as my business goes, that's just not true. I run a small business and cannot afford to license any commercial media, other than that which comes with a very permissive license for reuse in derivative works. Even if I could afford the fees (which I cannot), I still would not be able to afford the time to manage all the licenses. So instead I set minimum standards for the permissiveness of licenses I will accept, and don't entertain anything else under any circumstances because it's just too much hassle. If I can't get the media I want, I will either do without it or create it myself...

If you create something and haven't otherwise given up your rights you own the copyright. The only way somebody can shut you down is if you are infringing. The problem today on the web is that far to many think they can rip people off a little bit and not get caught. When they do get caught they whine about the DCMA or whatever.

That doesn't mean legitimate mistakes aren't made but the vast majority of enforcement actions taken over web sites are justified. Like it or not creators of content have their rights too. Frankly if artist couldn't make a living off their content the world would become a very boring place.

Tundro Walker wrote:

AnthonyInVA wrote:

Much better article than I've come to expect from Wired. Great job, Katie Scott.

It would be nice if it had a little more substance, though. It's nice that someone in the related field is opposing SOPA and PIPA (or, at least, that's what it sounds like), but it sounds to me that the MPAA and RIAA are being downplayed when it's said they've become "much more moderate" yet at least one RIAA member has been playing a game of cat and mouse with DMCA to this day.

I think we've learned from the UMG fiasco, it doesn't matter what license you publish your work under, what matters is the licensing terms the place you publish it at uses. You can walk into someone's house all you want yelling "free speech! free beer!", but that doesn't mean the owner of the house isn't allowed to call the cops on you for disturbing their peace.

I know places like SourceForge, and even NewGrounds.com, provide pre-canned licensing terms folks can pick-n-choose from. But, still, when you rely on a third-party to disseminate your goods, they still have the right to shut the door in your face if they choose.

And this makes it dicey with online publications, because you can keep drilling down until you hit a third party. Ok, you're publishing your software under a creative commons license, and you're doing it on your own domain. But, the software (for argument's sake) pisses some group off for whatever reason. Since it's not on SourceForge, that group can't just go to SF and tell them to take your stuff down. So, they go further upstream...they go to your ISP or try to comandeer your domain name via the government's new rules on domain name seizures, etc, etc. Ultimately, to get your content "out there", you have to rely on someone else to help you, regardless of how self-sufficient you try to be. And, as such, even with all kinds of open licenses that try to let you push your content out, you're still operating under someone elses jurisdiction and they can make a judgement call over whether they will allow you to keep operating or not.

Wikileaks springs to mind. (Maybe that's a bad example for a "creative commons" argument, but it demonstrates that the third-parties they were using to hose their site decided to shut them off even though they were paying.)

If you create something and haven't otherwise given up your rights you own the copyright. The only way somebody can shut you down is if you are infringing.

This is demonstrably false. People can 'shut you down' (for many values of 'shut down') by filing a DMCA takedown (it's not perjury unless your opponent can prove you knew the notice was in bad faith, and your opponent needs to have the money and time for a federal lawsuit for that; even if it's perjury, the federal authorities have lots more important things to worry about), by abusing a contract (a la UMG), by threatening to sue (a la Righthaven), etc.

Quote:

The problem today on the web is that far to many think they can rip people off a little bit and not get caught. When they do get caught they whine about the DCMA or whatever.

WB, UMB, an the NFL have verifiably ripped people off and they appear completely unconcerned about being caught. They still whine about the DMCA though.

Quote:

Frankly if artist couldn't make a living off their content the world would become a very boring place.

There's just no evidence that artists would be any worse off if we had the same copyright rules now that we used to have in 1908. None. There is a fair bit of evidence that copyright-holding corporations are abusing the laws we've passed since then, in ways that cost other people time, money, and effort to deal with. It's surely a good thing that all that wasted time, money, and effort couldn't have gone towards making more works!

Extreme "copyleft" à la GNU makes me feel like I'm cheating my family by spending time on "altruistic" projects and signing away the right to ever make any money from my hard work. [...]CC licenses are much more balanced:[...]

Sorry for the partial quote, but you may have missed some of the GPL and CC licenses characteristics:

1/ from a birds-eye view, a GNU GLP license and a CC-ShareAlike license are very similar (even if the GNU one is designed to apply to computer code, while the CC one is more generic) : liberty to use, liberty to share and liberty to modify. You can make modifications (or remixes) anyway you want, but if you make the modified code/art piece available, the only thing forbidden is to take away the users liberty by imposing a more restrictive license.

2/ even with the most "copyleft" licenses are totally compatible with making money.For art stuff, there's money to be made in public performances, derivative products and several forms of patronage; for code, there are many opportunities for personalized development around an open tool, consulting, and teaching; and if the license apply to plans for making hardware (like in the Open Hardware movement), money is simply made selling the hardware.

3/ as the owner of the copyright, you can always dual-license your work. Open a part of it, and sell the full-featured version. Or open the full version under a NonCommercial license, and sell commercial licenses to the interested businesses.